Two sides of a coin named "Eternity"
I know that a significant part of people who are interested in brain problems are not looking for an answer to questions like “How is the limbic system connected with the corpus callosum?”
And immediately an amusing observation from personal experience:
Not all people understand the meaning of the text from the previous quote. Not that "not right away" or "not fast." But they don’t understand at all. And this misunderstanding looks like a lack of subjective experience. On the basis of which I even for some time believed that not all people around me possess self-awareness. If you understand what I mean. It is even possible that you also sometimes came up with such thoughts. And by the way, I still have not found a reliable method to confirm or refute this hypothesis. For the simple reason that it is not falsifiable. As well as a significant part of other statements of “near-brain” subjects, which are generally considered to be scientific facts, but which, in essence, are simply common opinions.
And since there is also such a widespread opinion that “A correctly posed question is half the answer”, I suggest trying to consider the question from the first quote more closely. Well, simply because this puzzle, in one form or another, your intellect has been trying to solve all your life. Returning to her again and again, from the perspective of new experience and new knowledge.
1. In fact, this is what it is about:
Not only that, if you look closely, you can see that we can’t draw a clear line here between the core of this context and, let’s say, its periphery. In other words, this same chamomile, is separated from yourself directly, only at the level of physical realization (it is obvious that you and the flower are two completely separate biological entities). However, on a subjective, or, one might say virtual, level, both you, as a self-conscious entity, and this daisy, at the moment of your eye contact with it, are just parts of a single information stream.
Or we can say it another way: - You, as a self, and what you see at the moment, are executed in one container. Or a cloud. To whom it is closer.
Of course, the world around consists not only, and not so much of daisies. This is a table in front of you, and your laptop, and a chair under you. And the impulses come not only from the visual receptors, but also from the tactile, temperature, pressure receptors (on the stool). In particular, you constantly receive information about the state of internal organs and even that which you do not name and do not know by virtue of a superficial acquaintance with human anatomy. For example, from some phrenic nerves in the mediastinum, or something like that.
And all this data is flowing directly into the brain in a continuous stream. Some of them are recognized by us, sort of like the daisy from the example above. Others usually go in the background, like breathing or a pulse. Still others always go in the background, such as vegetative impulses from the kidneys. But all this flow of information is ultimately executed in a single context. And this context is magical, in the literal sense of the word.
2. The second “aspect of Eternity” can be formulated something like this:
To make sure of this is quite simple - open any explanatory dictionary, and you can find something there (I intentionally exaggerate now, for more obviousness):
- Attention is a property of consciousness to focus on objects,
- Consciousness is attention paid to the world around,
- Self-awareness is attention paid to itself.
Separately, there is nothing unusual in these definitions - they rather closely describe the conventional wisdom of defined abstractions. However, when you put them in one expression, it ultimately turns out that this:
x = y - 1
y = x + 1
y - x = 1
That is, expressions are kind of like consistent. And this, in many cases, gives the appearance of the credibility of the structure as a whole. However, what kind of "x" is this, and what kind of "y" is is completely incomprehensible.
Let's try to quickly explore the issue together, so that there is at least something to catch on.
1) First, it is obvious that “awareness of chamomile” is somehow connected with the speech process and, accordingly, the speech centers of our brain. To make sure of this is quite simple:
- Take a look around the space in front of you (say, the table you are currently sitting at) and select any object on it. And now clearly name it (mentally, or even out loud) - you will see that now this object has fully moved to the focus of your attention, and even additional entities-modules (a kind of Lasy load) that describe the class as a whole, have begun to load into the consciousness this object (in my case it turned out to be a "cup" and a "mobile phone").
2) Secondly, one can also see what we call silent states of consciousness. For example, during a tense hand-to-hand combat or shooting at moving objects, you can definitely say that you are conscious, although there is no “internal monologue” in these states (it simply does not have time or resources).
3) Thirdly, we see that what we call “consciousness” or “thought activity” is also associated with the internal mono- / multi- / dialogue. Our life is largely realized thanks to (or, in the presence of) a constant story / description of what is happening around. Sometimes speech is loud, sometimes it is almost inaudible, sometimes again there is no time for it, but somehow the described phenomenon is familiar to everyone.
Can one say that self-awareness is a product of the speech centers of the brain? Well, here we are embarking on a shaky ground of unsubstantiated assumptions. And then a number of questions arise, for example, about people deaf from birth. Or, is it possible to consider the whole gamut of various feline "meow" - from purring cats to kittens, to the ugly yelling of fighting cats - a full-fledged speech that entails self-awareness.
Or maybe self-awareness is precisely connected with the logical loop of our speech, where all concepts in a circle determine one thing or another, and it is simply impossible to find a tail from this Ouroboros. And these closed circuits in the brain - this is the core of what we call "I myself, as a conscious being"?
In any case, what about the “silent” consciousness when the picture with the recording is received and analyzed, but there is no internal monologue? Who sees this picture? Who is the one on the other end of the wire? To whom ultimately all the communication threads and all the data transfer protocols inside the brain converge? Who is the one we call ourselves?
Personally, I didn’t have any answers as a child - so there are none even now, almost at the end of my life. And this is not because I am an idiot, or did not pay due attention to this. Not at all. I am one of those guys whose math and physics controls were written off at school. And this topic has been of interest to me since preschool age, when I first wondered, “How am I - is it me?”
And there have been times in life many times when it seemed to me that I still found the answer to this question from childhood. But time passed, and I clearly saw, again and again, that all these answers were only appearances. And that they answered the question “How?”, But they did not answer the question “What-is-all-all-such?” At all
Perhaps someone who reads these lines knows for certain what they are talking about, and can share this knowledge?
Be healthy!
Roman D.
Telegram: romand
You are looking for the answer to the question: - Where exactly in these two kilograms of fatty jelly does what you call “Myself” or simply “I” live?
And immediately an amusing observation from personal experience:
Not all people understand the meaning of the text from the previous quote. Not that "not right away" or "not fast." But they don’t understand at all. And this misunderstanding looks like a lack of subjective experience. On the basis of which I even for some time believed that not all people around me possess self-awareness. If you understand what I mean. It is even possible that you also sometimes came up with such thoughts. And by the way, I still have not found a reliable method to confirm or refute this hypothesis. For the simple reason that it is not falsifiable. As well as a significant part of other statements of “near-brain” subjects, which are generally considered to be scientific facts, but which, in essence, are simply common opinions.
And since there is also such a widespread opinion that “A correctly posed question is half the answer”, I suggest trying to consider the question from the first quote more closely. Well, simply because this puzzle, in one form or another, your intellect has been trying to solve all your life. Returning to her again and again, from the perspective of new experience and new knowledge.
1. In fact, this is what it is about:
- Nuclear reactions in the bowels of the sun give rise to a flow of energy, including in the form of photons.
- Photons, reflected from objects on the surface of the Earth, fall on the retina of your eye, giving rise to nerve impulses in it.
- (I just want to ascribe something like ".then (...")
- Each impulse, through the optic nerve, and further along the optic tract, each goes to its destination, of which there are many, and all of them are described in detail in the textbook of anatomy.
- And now, when these impulses, born, say, of the sun's rays reflected from a roadside daisy with white petals, reach their final destination, some completely unthinkable magic begins. As a result of which, all these photons, pulses, and other biophysical mechanics are transferred to the context of what we call “Own Life ()”.
Not only that, if you look closely, you can see that we can’t draw a clear line here between the core of this context and, let’s say, its periphery. In other words, this same chamomile, is separated from yourself directly, only at the level of physical realization (it is obvious that you and the flower are two completely separate biological entities). However, on a subjective, or, one might say virtual, level, both you, as a self-conscious entity, and this daisy, at the moment of your eye contact with it, are just parts of a single information stream.
Or we can say it another way: - You, as a self, and what you see at the moment, are executed in one container. Or a cloud. To whom it is closer.
Of course, the world around consists not only, and not so much of daisies. This is a table in front of you, and your laptop, and a chair under you. And the impulses come not only from the visual receptors, but also from the tactile, temperature, pressure receptors (on the stool). In particular, you constantly receive information about the state of internal organs and even that which you do not name and do not know by virtue of a superficial acquaintance with human anatomy. For example, from some phrenic nerves in the mediastinum, or something like that.
And all this data is flowing directly into the brain in a continuous stream. Some of them are recognized by us, sort of like the daisy from the example above. Others usually go in the background, like breathing or a pulse. Still others always go in the background, such as vegetative impulses from the kidneys. But all this flow of information is ultimately executed in a single context. And this context is magical, in the literal sense of the word.
Because there is no clear and intelligible answer to the question: - How the data stream in the nervous system forms what we call “Ourselves” and “Our own lives” does not exist in our culture (including science).There are, of course, a number of popular superstitions on this subject. But this, as we understand it, is not serious for a thinking person.
2. The second “aspect of Eternity” can be formulated something like this:
- Chamomile, from the example above, can be fully recognized as chamomile, or it can simply pass by a background that we will not pay any attention to, and the question sounds like: - And what are we talking about when we talk about "paying attention to what "and about" awareness of something "?Do not rush to answer with a memorized phrase, because here everything is far from being as simple as it seems in the lessons on philosophy.
This is largely due to the imperfection of our lingua (communication language), in which complex abstract concepts are expressed through each other, forming closed loops from definitions. This is a solid logical tautology, so to speak.
To make sure of this is quite simple - open any explanatory dictionary, and you can find something there (I intentionally exaggerate now, for more obviousness):
- Attention is a property of consciousness to focus on objects,
- Consciousness is attention paid to the world around,
- Self-awareness is attention paid to itself.
Separately, there is nothing unusual in these definitions - they rather closely describe the conventional wisdom of defined abstractions. However, when you put them in one expression, it ultimately turns out that this:
x = y - 1
y = x + 1
y - x = 1
That is, expressions are kind of like consistent. And this, in many cases, gives the appearance of the credibility of the structure as a whole. However, what kind of "x" is this, and what kind of "y" is is completely incomprehensible.
Let's try to quickly explore the issue together, so that there is at least something to catch on.
1) First, it is obvious that “awareness of chamomile” is somehow connected with the speech process and, accordingly, the speech centers of our brain. To make sure of this is quite simple:
- Take a look around the space in front of you (say, the table you are currently sitting at) and select any object on it. And now clearly name it (mentally, or even out loud) - you will see that now this object has fully moved to the focus of your attention, and even additional entities-modules (a kind of Lasy load) that describe the class as a whole, have begun to load into the consciousness this object (in my case it turned out to be a "cup" and a "mobile phone").
2) Secondly, one can also see what we call silent states of consciousness. For example, during a tense hand-to-hand combat or shooting at moving objects, you can definitely say that you are conscious, although there is no “internal monologue” in these states (it simply does not have time or resources).
3) Thirdly, we see that what we call “consciousness” or “thought activity” is also associated with the internal mono- / multi- / dialogue. Our life is largely realized thanks to (or, in the presence of) a constant story / description of what is happening around. Sometimes speech is loud, sometimes it is almost inaudible, sometimes again there is no time for it, but somehow the described phenomenon is familiar to everyone.
Can one say that self-awareness is a product of the speech centers of the brain? Well, here we are embarking on a shaky ground of unsubstantiated assumptions. And then a number of questions arise, for example, about people deaf from birth. Or, is it possible to consider the whole gamut of various feline "meow" - from purring cats to kittens, to the ugly yelling of fighting cats - a full-fledged speech that entails self-awareness.
Or maybe self-awareness is precisely connected with the logical loop of our speech, where all concepts in a circle determine one thing or another, and it is simply impossible to find a tail from this Ouroboros. And these closed circuits in the brain - this is the core of what we call "I myself, as a conscious being"?
In any case, what about the “silent” consciousness when the picture with the recording is received and analyzed, but there is no internal monologue? Who sees this picture? Who is the one on the other end of the wire? To whom ultimately all the communication threads and all the data transfer protocols inside the brain converge? Who is the one we call ourselves?
Personally, I didn’t have any answers as a child - so there are none even now, almost at the end of my life. And this is not because I am an idiot, or did not pay due attention to this. Not at all. I am one of those guys whose math and physics controls were written off at school. And this topic has been of interest to me since preschool age, when I first wondered, “How am I - is it me?”
And there have been times in life many times when it seemed to me that I still found the answer to this question from childhood. But time passed, and I clearly saw, again and again, that all these answers were only appearances. And that they answered the question “How?”, But they did not answer the question “What-is-all-all-such?” At all
Perhaps someone who reads these lines knows for certain what they are talking about, and can share this knowledge?
Be healthy!
Roman D.
Telegram: romand
All Articles